When scheduling an appointment, the most directly important stakeholders are the patient and the resources needed for the appointment.
Therefore, when the appointment scheduler finds a free timeslot for a certain appointment and agreed with the patient, it does not mean for him that this is also a convenient solution. He particularly has 2 doubts:                does this new appointment fit ‘well enough’ into the agenda of the patient?        does this new appointment fit ‘well enough’ into the agendas of the involved resources?        
The answer to first enumerated doubt seems trivial to find with the patient at the desk or on the phone, but this is not always the case.
Often the patient is not nearby (patients may be in a room in the hospital, a message may be passed from colleagues, family of the patient may be asking for the appointment, etc. . . . ), so the new appointment must be checked in view of the existing appointments. But even with the patient's presence, a patient tends to forget some appointments or is unaware of the clinical relation (=needed pre-exams or needed post-exams after certain procedures) between his appointments. Typically, a new consultation to evaluate patient's condition can only happen after the scan (or other medico-technical exam) has been taken.
Similarly, check within the resource's agenda is needed.
It may be necessary to check previous and past appointments within that agenda, if they are ‘similar enough’. This is important because typically physicians like to have similar particular exams and/or procedures consecutively to increase both efficiency. Moreover, this also increases the effectiveness of their actions. In addition rooms or certain equipment (scanners) are set up for certain types of procedures implying that it is more efficient with regard to use of the resource efficiency to combine similar procedures.
Furthermore it might be necessary to check if certain procedures are possibly close to un-availabilities of a resource, putting them at higher scheduling risk.
It may also be necessary to be able in case of ‘forcing’ a procedure into an agenda to view the context of this forcing.
Finally, in case there seems to be justification for one of these doubts, the appointment scheduler easily wants to cancel the appointment and select a new one in consensus with the patient's demands.
With existing scheduling applications, a view can be created on a combined resources' agenda, or different resources next to each other, but this is a stand-alone view, manually set up.
In other words, in case the patient (or appointment scheduler) for example changes his opinion, this view has to be reconstructed manually on another day and particular time.
In case of one resource, this would be acceptable—in case of multiple resources involved, this takes additional time, with no guarantee on the outcome.
Additionally, in another view, patient's existing appointments can be shown. A combined view is not possible.
It is thus an aspect of the present invention to provide an improved appointment scheduling method and user interface with verification capability that solves the above described shortcomings of the state of the art.